2012 (11) TMI 28 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty under Section 11AC alleged that suppression of fact regarding the valuation of goods under Section 4 of Central Excise Act - contention of the respondent is that they were not aware of the change in the provisions of law at the material time and there was no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on their part Held that - After the amendment, the provisions applicable to packages intended for retail sale, did not apply to packages containing quantity of more than 25 Kgs. or 25 Ltrs. However, from 14-1-2007 to 30-11-2007, the respondent continued paying duty on value of the goods on the basis of pre-amended provisions of law and the respondents have paid duty on 6-10-2009 and there was no suppression of fact with intent to evade duty - Revenue s appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against setting aside penalty under Section 11AC by Commissioner (Appeals) based on alleged suppression of fact regarding valuation of goods under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent's claim of lack of awareness of law change, no intent to evade duty, and challenge against imposition of interest.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata involved a dispute over the penalty under Section 11AC imposed by the Revenue, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue contended that there was suppression of fact regarding the valuation of goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, resulting in under-valuation, justifying the penalty. They cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case. However, the respondent argued that they were unaware of the legal change and had no intent to evade duty, with the Commissioner (Appeal) finding in their favor, also challenging the imposition of interest.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that Rule 2A of the Standards and Weights Rules, 1977 was amended, affecting the applicability of provisions related to packages for retail sale from 14-1-1977. Despite this, the respondent continued paying duty based on pre-amended provisions from 14-1-2007 to 30-11-2007. The Tribunal found no suppression of fact with intent to evade duty, as the Department failed to prove otherwise. The Commissioner (Appeal) had made cogent findings supporting the respondent's position. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the respondent did not challenge the Commissioner's order on interest, and it is a settled principle that interest follows a sustainable duty demand automatically.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order in its entirety, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on merit. The judgment reaffirmed that there was no reason to interfere with the findings, as the respondent's actions were deemed compliant with the law, and the imposition of interest was justified based on the demand of duty.